[Seydlitz]

There are definitely some good conscript armies still out there, and you have cited the best example, the IDF. The ROK army is good, but even they're considering cutting back their reliance on conscripts. As for the American examples, I don't find them too persuasive. Our combat performance in the wars of the 20th century was mixed. US dominance in airpower and artillery often disguised sub-optimal performance on the ground.

The trade-off between quality and quantity cannot be avoided. Countries like the ROK and Israel have to err on the side of quantity, given the massive and immediate threat to their national existence. We are not so threatened, and can afford to err on the side of quality. Putting a bunch of less-motived and less well-trained draftees into body-bags won't help in the War on Terror. That said, Bush was a fool for not using the post-9/11 environment to expand the size of the US ground forces.

[Meldrim]

"Putting a bunch of less-motived and less well-trained draftees into body-bags won't help in the War on Terror"

...neither will putting a bunch of demographic groups we know typically don't make it through their initial enlistments (white females).